In chronicling the ongoing anti-White, anti-male, anti-heteronormative ideological full-court-press of our judicial, media, and governmental overlords, it is all-too easy to find oneself flogged into a perpetual state of spluttering outrage, or thrust towards a inveterate inclination to indulge in gloomy-doomy prognosticatications.

Such reactions are, in a way, understandable. After all, the campaign afoot to criminalize and/or stigmatize the most innocent, healthy, and normal of human impulses – such as the preference for one's own culture, heritage, or traditions – is indeed an outrageous, obnoxious, and nefarious assault on decency. That said, however, one should take care not avoid the snare of becoming an angry, snarling – but ultimately impotent – curmudgeon, compulsively soaking up the latest ridiculousness, blared luridly from various right-wing scandal sheet tabloids, which record all of these malefactions and atrocities with grinning, almost obscene relish.

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss Hillary Clinton's recent speech attacking the Alt-Right and attempting to link us to Donald Trump. Have we really taken over the Republican Party, and are we part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." involving the likes of David Duke, Nigel Farage, Alex Jones, and a large green frog — all controlled by Vladimir Putin?

What does this say about the state of Hillary's campaign and her mental health? Is she really looking to start WWIII or is she merely trying to reach out to a few cuckservatives and neocons by using Cold War and McCarthyite rhetoric?

Thanks to Hillary Clinton deciding to make war on Donald Trump by linking him to the Alternative Right, implying that the Alternative Right is an ideological enemy so derided that none can survive being linked to it, the Alternative Right is rising in public consciousness.

Thank you, Reno! It’s great to be back in Nevada…My original plan for this visit was to focus on our agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. This week we proposed new steps to cut red tape and taxes, and make it easier for small businesses to get the credit they need to grow and hire. Because I believe that in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. We’ll be talking a lot more about our economic plans in the days and weeks ahead.

But today, I want to address something I hear from Americans all over our country. Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election. It’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for President of the United States.

Left-liberal attitudes and habits of mind may at one time have been radical, provocative, and gutsy, but today they are staid, stale, conventional, and boring. Any honest contemporary cultural Marxist will have to admit that, politically speaking, his side now holds all significant power. Those who openly decline to subscribe to the ideological establishment's point of view on such matters as race, gender, and sexuality have in effect committed social suicide; having put themselves utterly at the mercy of the powers-that-be, such unfortunates have left themselves open to attack by legions of official Zeitgeist-enforcers and their numerous toadying minions.

How tedious! Apparently Hillary Clinton, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from her shit health and crap policies, is going to deliver a pus-filled speech attacking the Alt-Right and attempting to link us to Donald Trump. Although the speech will be turgid and full of laughable errors, it will nevertheless be boosted by the flailing energies of the zombie mainstream media, and thus become – albeit temporarily – quite a big deal.

Scott Walker, or "Harley," as he would have liked to have been called, would seem to be a pretty traditionally Wisconsin guy. His political rise though, was actually only made possible by the decline of traditional Wisconsin.

The official center of Downtown Madison is a pedestrian-only, shopping/dining district called, fittingly, "State Street." It runs for about a mile, and at one end is the State Capitol, while at the other end is UW-Madison, Wisconsin’s flagship university. Locals probably associate the area more with raucous Halloween parties and homeless people than anything else, but State Street is obviously designed to be the symbolic cultural center of the state, physically linking the two great institutional expressions of its people.

It is a nice touch, I think, and it has long been much more than symbolic. Many readers, I am sure, are at least somewhat familiar with "the Wisconsin Idea"—the idea that "the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state." This means that the university is to expand the benefits of its knowledge to every citizen of the state.

This is a bit old, but worth noting in retrospect, and well worth a listen: Robert Stark and his guest host Alex von Goldstein engage in an amusing and informative meta-conversation about that most "meta" of memes, Pepe the Frog, and the little green guy's ironic emergence as an alt-right icon.

This is a picture of a Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) aid worker, taken at the organization's hospital in Juba, South Sudan. She looks like the typical White, Western, liberal cuck, who postpones having her own kids to instead look after those of an entirely alien people, who are outbreeding us, just so she can morally signal off it and feel somehow important.

The good news, at least for the individual here, is that this photo was taken over two years ago, so there is a fairly good chance that she is no longer in South Sudan right now, from where reports have just emerged of mass gang rapes committed by South Sudanese solders, including rapes of foreign female aid workers. The attacks happened last month, so you may be wondering why the delay in reporting this atrocity? But, of course, we all know the answer to that—negative stereotypes must be stopped at all costs. But back to what actually happened...

"The big tycoons lurk indeed as the ultimate driving force behind world-encompassing Anglo-American imperialism; nothing else. The great money-powers indeed financed the terrifying mass-homicides of the World War. The great money-powers have indeed, as owners of all great newspapers, woven the world into a web of lies. They have with satisfaction whipped up all lower passions, have diligently fostered the growth of present tendencies…" Gottfried Feder

Reading Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship brought to mind that infamous article which Winston Churchill wrote in 1920, for a popular British Sunday newspaper, the Illustrated Sunday Herald, entitled "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People." Gilbert devotes a small chapter to the essay, provoking me to write my objections to Churchill's very biased argumentation in favour of Zionism.

In an extraordinary piece recently published at the Wall Street Journal, bastion of the contemporary neocon establishment, a veteran conservative "gatekeeper" journalist cuts to the heart of the treasonous spirit of a quintessential modern Western (mis)ruler.

Although she never uses the term "ethnomasochist," writer Peggy Noonan essentially summons up the concept in discussing the motivations behind the disastrous "open door" migrant policy pursued by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The rise of Donald Trump is a good excuse to discover or rediscover one his most intelligent supporters, himself a former candidate for Republican leadership, Pat Buchanan. He has now become an unapologetic cheerleader of Donald Trump, defending with arguments and brains what Trump is yelling with a populist tone, thus giving an intellectual stature to the one the media portray as Donald Dumb.

It is always hard to pinpoint the best text to read and analyze when trying to understand someone who has written a dozen books and countless articles. The choice is subjective and might be misleading, but the New York Times bestseller The Death of the West sparked my interest. How could a book with such a Spenglerian title become so popular? And how could a book said to be that politically incorrect get such high rankings and recognition? I then decided that this would be the book I would read to better understand the American politician so often quoted by Guillaume Faye and other New Rightists.

Here in the UK, the BBC so much want to focus on the Rio Olympics and how Britain's team, with its strategically placed selection of well-adjusted non-Whites, is getting on with the important business of giving the post-Brexit nation the right gleam of international openness. However, instead of this they are forced to interrupt coverage of the multicultural "mytopia" to report on that ominous presence across the Atlantic, Donald J. Trump.

The globalist left keep telling us that "diversity is our strength™" and that we can only have it through a ridiculous policy of open borders, mass immigration, political correctness, and race mixing. Predictably enough the Rio Olympics and the largely miscegentaed nature of the host nation is being pressed into service in selling this message, but to see its validity, just keep an eye on the medal table. Usually host nations do particularly well. China won in 2008 and the UK was third in 2012. But don't expect to see Brazil emulate any of that.

Slavoj Zizek has repeatedly made the seemingly contradictory point that Leftists should adopt "progressive racism" in order to counter racism. This would involve telling racist jokes that would produce "solidarity" by a communal sharing in obscenity. The joke and the laughter would effectively function as an assuaging mechanism to mask the very real and prescient tribal instincts, especially of whites whose countries are being invaded by a waves of foreign competitors.

Here in the UK the London Olympic Games have been considered a great success. After two weeks of competition, the British Olympic team has won an astounding 29 gold medals and has finished third in the medals table, above the mighty Russians and below only the USA and China. One of the most mentioned facts in recent days is the single gold medal we won at the 1996 Olympics. On the naïve level of simple, uncomplicated sporting enthusiasm it has been a resounding success, and an easy sell to the sporting inclinations of the UK public.

But looking at the bigger picture, the hidden agendas, and the crunched numbers, a different picture starts to emerge; one that suggests Britain’s Olympic success is merely the phosphorescent glow of an entity walking in death’s shadow.

Some countries will do anything to get an Olympic medal. Georgia, for example, went to the trouble of recruiting both its men and women’s beach volleyball teams from players rejected from Brazil’s national team. This meant that players who spoke no Georgian, knew almost nothing about the country, and had only visited it once or twice, briefly, competed under its banner. Luckily, justice was done and both teams failed to get a medal.

Georgia’s neighbour Turkey was more successful. It got a couple of silver medals from the Ethiopian long distance runner Elvan Abeylegesse. Compared to the ‘Georgians,’ at least Abeylegesse had lived in the country for a few years and had also married but then divorced a Turkish national. Still, the reason she finished second in the 5,000 and 10,000-meter races wasn’t because she was Turkish. Despite what it said on her passport or vest, she was still biologically benefiting from having the lightweight frame and high red blood cell count of an Ethiopian.

The internet, which is now a social interaction, like all social interactions, distills complex ideas down to the viewpoint of the herd: we fear this, we do not fear that.

As a result, on the Right there is often talk about “Zionism” as being a horrible evil which intends to take over the world, forgetting that Zionism is an assertion of Nationalism—the idea that Jews need their own state, and all Jews belong there, where they can control their destiny and live according to their ways.

The US election has now entered its final stage, the battle between Trump and Hillary. Thanks to the insurgent nature of Trump's campaign, we are now in unfamiliar territory. We have never had anything quite like this before. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to say how things will pan out and who will win. Looked at one way, it must be Trump, but, looked at from another angle, suddenly Hillary looks certain to be installed as President by the powerful forces backing—and presumably controlling—her (right now cooked polls are putting her seven points ahead). In short, the overall picture is confusing.